About this Show

Washington Journal

News/Business. Live morning call-in program with government officials, political leaders, and journalists.




San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 17






Us 34, Benghazi 18, Washington 16, Cleveland 11, Sharyl Attkisson 10, United States 10, Fbi 9, Boston 9, Libya 8, Ncic 8, U.s. 7, Ohio 7, Clinton 5, Mrs. Clinton 5, Cia 5, America 5, Florida 4, Philip Mudd 4, Obama 4, Mac Thornberry 3,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  CSPAN    Washington Journal    News/Business. Live morning call-in program with  
   government officials, political leaders, and journalists.  

    May 12, 2013
    7:00 - 10:01am EDT  

exploited children. we examined the growing threat of homegrown terrorists and. "washington journal"is next. ♪ host: good morning as a new week begins here in washington, d.c., republicans have more questions for the aisle at -- irs and obama administration. the issue is likely to leave the political agenda. meeting with david cameron tomorrow, the prime minister turkey on thursday. fry the president travels to baltimore for what white house is calling the jobs and opportunity to work. it is mother's day, may 12. we're point asked a question that congress dealt with last
week, would rather have overtime pay for additional hours on the job? you get your calls and -- ents you can also join us on twitter, facebook, or send us an e-mail. cspanwj.er handle is passed largely along party line votes, it allows employees to either opt out of overtime pay or instead except up pay. the call the bill family friendly legislation that gives the workers flexibility on how they would like to compensated. currently employers must hour -- offer them time and half for every hour over 40.
this statement was released by the white house office of management and budget. host to a mother and republican member of congress from alabama deliver the republican response to the weekly address. calle[the of the] >> -- video clip] inremoving comp time exchange for overtime, with more options for working mothers and
fathers who need more time for family responsibilities with conservative principles helping working americans in their effort -- everyday lives. it does not change the 40 hour for week, for about -- however time is calculated the same objections remained and we have added additional protections against coercion and unfair treatment. it does not add government regulation to the workplace. we have enough red tape as it is. in the public sector enjoy this benefit right now because in 1985 congress passed a law allowing local and state governments to offer their employees can time. why should the rules be any different for employees in the private sector? why should government employees have more freedom in the workplace than everyone else? the restriction from the
government that is free to offer? we want to get washington out of the way of how you use your time. i have vowed to champion the working family flexibility act throughout the country. host: the question of the are asking this morning, would you rather have comp time or overtime pay? the debate has exposed a partisan divide over well it would help or hurt workers. some republicans believe that employers would accommodate workers the prefer comp time over cash. as the debate continues you can join us on our twitter page. this comment from a viewer -- we are having trouble getting 40
hours, they do not need to worry about over time. good morning, alliant for democrats? -- line for democrats? caller: this is another partisan appeal that republicans are laying out for the middle-class and lower crop -- lower class workers. people depend on the extra hours they get in overtime just to live when you are making minimum wage. republicans are doing nothing to help the american people and are trying to destroy government. this is all they're doing. you cannot grow government with people laying this all out. when they work, they pay taxes. this would simply just be used not to pay workers and to keep wages low. neede need hours, people jobs.
republicans could do nothing but a check -- but obstructionism. host: jerry, ohio. caller: the previous caller was spot on. this thing is ridiculous. on -- ihave something do not know what to say about pay isherlands, the equivalent to the living wage. we should do a program on that. where are the jobs? is we have had in force on employment because people are dropping off and are not being replaced because greed on the part of these companies, even the smaller companies. i have a friend who had a sales a footve because of
operation. i asked if they replaced her, he said no, they just got more calls on him. the same thing with his daughter from oklahoma, to people on staff. i asked if they replace them and he said no, they were making him work overtime. they said they would rather pay overtime than hire new employees. changing every quarter. >> ok. -- host: ok, we appreciate the call from columbus, ohio. this story from the richmond times dispatch, spearheaded by eric cantor, on this mother's day we are asking you whether or not you prefer, time as opposed to overtime. as opposed to overtime.
it would be accrued at the same rate as overtime pay for those who work over 40 hours per week. joining us from louisville, ky. democratic line. caller: i would like to bring up one point that the congressman did not, which is that the time that it relates to his chosen by your employer. it is not chosen by the employee. i am a public sector worker. havet comp time, we do not a choice for overtime. if i want to take off monday and i clear it to my supervisor, then i am off. i do not think that is a d dert,
especially one that they're trying to paint as family friend of bill's that allow people flexibility. it does not allow the employee flexibility, only the employer. host: thank you for the call. this story from friday, in case you missed it, the troy, a walkout over low wage jobs. -- in detroit, a walkout over low-wage jobs.
host: jim has this point on our twitter page. from thee reaction white house on this proposed legislation last week. this statement from the office of management and budget. host: next on the republican line is margaret, joining us from south carolina. good morning, welcome to the conversation. caller: i have worked in management for most of my working life. i always had people signing up for over time, they signed up for the money. , they need the
extra pay. a lot of workers who make these studies in the united states do not take the time of the they have. a lot of people do not even use the time that they have. they need the money. that is what they need. companiessay that's cannot influence how you choose, then you have never worked in business and you know that you were there to please your employer and you can do what they think they want so that they can keep you on so that they denied it review. you think it is set up so that they cannot retaliate against workers that want the money, that is not exactly a true statement, not in the real world. call thank you for the from south carolina.
this is from frank. host: some of the story is likely to drive the next couple of weeks, linked to a number of web sites, including the drug report. the question is -- can obama avoid the curse of a second term? the right that recent events suggest that the 44th president may not be immune to the phenomenon that historians have called the second term curse. the president in, finds himself struggling to move through congress.
postal by the way, sharyl attkisson will be with it -- host: by the way, sharyl attkisson will be with us in about 25 minutes. our next caller is danny from birmingham, alabama. good morning, walk into the program. caller: i was calling to say that this bill advantages the corporations and companies, doing nothing for the employees. as your previous caller has stipulated, businesses, they are only looking for another way to prevent from paying an employee. most of these hours, you lose them if you do not take them in a certain period of time. when it is time to take them, an
employee is very dismissive about anyone being able to take off. we are too busy right now. my wife mostly gives vacation pay because the economy is so bad. down byes being driven republicans. that is all i have to say, thank you. host: donna has this point -- host: if you are just tuning in, the question we are asking, would you rather have comp time or overtime pay? our phone lines -- hosta we welcome our viewers and listeners from outside the united states as well. -- host: we welcome our viewers and listeners from outside the united states as well.
gun sale loopholes in "the chicago tribune." "loopholes put guns in the hands of felons." of theting the problem straw buyers of." in "the atlanta constitution," child gun deaths amounts. sioux falls, s.d., welcome to the conversation, brian. caller: i have been listening to your previous callers. simplyis kind of a bill protect the corporations. work forle nowadays the money. over time, otherwise. who works two jobs and has to take a vacation from his , just to keep the
bills paideally the vacation is a waste that he gets from his other employment. something like this, i do not see it. why try to fix what is not broken? that is what government does, that is right. [laughter] the: ok, thank you for call. this from "cq weekly." meghan sculley has the story on service suicides within the military. host: more on the issue of sexual harassment in the
military, this from inside the opinion section of "the washington post." "four steps to take against sexual abuse." four recommendations -- number one, cracked down hard on drinking and drugs. host: that is this morning from the opinion section of "the washington post." thomas, republican line good morning. overtime pay verses comp time. good morning. caller: was i mistaken? i thought the comp time -- i thought that comp time was paid time off?
sounds good to me. host: thank you for the call and the point of view. david, next. caller: good morning. this is a trojan horse for the republicans. in the private sector they have contracts and unions with managers of to no good. now there is someone there to watch that and check that. again, republicans are going to window dress this for working families, a trojan horse that is a terrible idea and i hope barack obama vetos this. host: this measure did pass the house among party-line votes. it now heads to the senate but it remains unclear whether the democrats in the senate will take it up. -- , from our twitter page
host: a democrat from connecticut, here's what she had to say on wednesday. [video clip] >> i rise in strong opposition before up -- to the bill before us, which looks to bring to an end the 40 hour work week. this is another attempt by the house majority to accelerate a race to the bottom, strip workers of basic rights and protection, undermining the foundation of the american middle-class. the working family flexibility act does exactly the opposite of what it describes. there is no flexibility. the legislation drops the statute guaranteeing overtime pay for work over 40 hours. overtime pay. the the single mothers need. hardworking american families
rely on it. it allows employers, if they so choose, to provide, time for all of this extra work, except there are no guarantees that workers can take the time if indeed it, and there are no avenues for workers to file grievances. this bill forces employees to work extra hours without overtime pay and get nothing in return. yes, we need serious economic solution to the problems being faced by families. wages have stagnated for decades. they make less than what the minimum wage was worse -- was worth in 1968. unlike every other economy in the world, 42 million workers cannot take up time when they are sick or need to care for a sick child or ailing relative. we need legislation that provides employees with paid time off if they need it. this would allow workers up to
seven protected sick days for each year, building on pro- family policies passed in connecticut, seattle, oregon, washington d.c., san francisco. host: those of the comments from rep delauro. mark williams has this point on our twitter page to an earlier caller. host: on the republican line, mitch is joining us. good morning. caller: but morning. i agree with almost everyone who has called in, except for a couple. this gives employers the jurisdiction. when they say that they would give you can time for this, i
have had jobs where there was, time involved. time involved. sometimes you do not get what you are expecting. or it turns out it is not the big deal they say will be. we would often do that for things like off hours that they wanted us to do. and then it turns out that you do not really get the time that you needed when you needed it. and then it evaporators off the books. this whole deal, eric cantor and that republican congress, i do not know whose values they represent. it does not seem like the working people or families of this country. they should be more concerned about giving our businesses a break and shafting everyone else. i do not get it, but i certainly
hope that president obama the vetoes it. i am sure that he will. i am sure that it will get through the senate. host: appreciate that. this point from jan. -- host: we heard from the representative a moment ago, a republican in the house of representatives. going back to another story from yesterday, the irs. from "the washington post," the irs was given the worst week in washington. "just and you think they cannot sink and the lower"?
most of the story is also available online at the ap web site. -- host: the story is also available online at the ap website. "the irs apologized on friday for what they called inappropriate targeting." "at that meeting, the told a group that those with tea party or patriot parties are in the
names were being flagged for additional and often burdensome scrutiny, according to the report." next is eddie, from mission, texas, independent line. caller: i wanted to make the point that i have been in the restaurant management business for 18 years. this bill affects the low-wage employees. this absolves the employer of any and all responsibility for giving time off. thean that now instead of employees asking for time off, he says okay, i will give you time off in exchange for overtime. that is kind of like -- i wanted it for next week. this basically only serves the employer and to a small degree the employee, but this is made employers, and- simple. host: mitch, thank you for
waiting. caller: good morning. anything more i cannot take over time more comp time for over 40 hours per week, this is done thegislation -- way that it should be -- when you do not use that comp time for it after one year, you should be paid for it. and we do. we get paid the time and half 4 time andomp time -- half for the unused comp time for the year. your choice, done right, that is the way it should be. host: thank you very much for the call. weekly," story of "cq "what is good for you"? "whose business is helping
lawmakers in these provisions"? careng the cost of health down. gary, this point, twitter page. host: dan, pa., balkan to the conversation. -- welcome to the conversation. caller: this is just another way for the corporations to cut social security, medicare, and it is a big money saver for them. host: george, columbus, georgia. think that this is just a big sham from the republican party. peoples like a lot of understand this comp time stuff,
where the employer decides when you will take it. time and half for overtime pay? then they tell you that it is done by date. i am upset with the republican party doing this year. host: this comment was a play on something that we heard a lot about during the 2012 campaign. these are people, after all. from "the new york times." department, "just days after republicans used senate rules to block nominees."
host: terry jeffries is following this story, "words containing key party, compatriot, conservative." the house ways and means subcommittee "has thrown down the investigative the lead on the irs, demanding the investigation and over next wednesday every included word. also demanding that they provide the committee with names and titles of individuals involved in targeting conservative
nonprofit groups for the more intensive review of nonprofit status. -- status." the question we are asking this morning, comp time as opposed to overtime pay. caller: my name is silvan. democrats,ening to liberals, and progressives talk about what employers and corporations do. of course, none of them want to start or be in charge of a company because they are lazy idiots, like obama. that is the stupidest president i have ever seen in my life. he is a moron. the only thing stupider is what a crooked, conniving, evil he is. if the employees want overtime, just like they ask the the votes so that
he can murder the black babies. host: i will stop it there, you are crossing the line. florida, good morning. caller: i would like to comment, i have comp time. i had a physician for 27 years with the government. i had a position -- i had a position for 27 years with the government. and i was never given the comp time. isconcern is that there already a lot on the books called fair labor standards act passed in 1938. this new bill being introduced, i am confused how it will work. if so, people who are not unionized have no recourse.
host: as the bill states, it gives the employee the choice to overt, time -- comp time overtime pay. many democrats say the employer will seek it out as a way to offset their bottom line. caller: what they do is they tell you that they will take the comp time and not give it to you. so, i am concerned about the fair lever -- fair labor standards act being compromised. host: let me have the speaker of the house way in all of this. on his website he posted a video that outlines the republican point of view on all of this. this is speaker boehner. [video clip] >> for decades the government employees to work overtime have been able to choose between taking time off or getting extra
cash. republicans want to make sure that homeworkers have that choice. this changes the loss of the private sector employers are allowed to offer comp time to their employees. if you work a few extra hours one day and prefer to take time off on another, you can. time that you can spend helping out your parents, taking your kids to a ball game, or whenever you see fit. or, take the cash. you're the boss, not washington. let me know if you think by visiting speaker.gov for joining the conversation on twitter. host: those of the comments of the speaker in a video that is -- was posted on his web site last week. this is from nancy in greenville, texas, who says --
host: the white house issued a statement on this legislation, indicating that the president would veto it. while misrepresenting itself as a workplace flexibility measure -- this is from land. -- lynn. host: continued to send us your e-mails. -- please continue to send us your e-mails. in, good morning.
-- diane, good morning. caller: i am a lifelong conservative. a message for the republican party -- you're shooting yourself in the foot. this is not a good idea. it should only be at the request of the employee within the 40 hour work week. not as a measure of whether to take over time or not. i work for a great company as well. but we were exempt. employees, it worked out just fine, but it does not work out just fine for people who work in low-wage jobs that depend on every nickel that they make to get by. conservative, but the republicans have got to start recognizing that everybody does not have a job like i used to have. especially in this day and age.
, ifst wish that they would they were going to come up with a bill like this just make it after a -- make it at the request of the employee within the 40 hour per week framework. tot would be of flexibility people who need to take time off for family emergencies, that kind of thing. host: thank you for the call. this is from florida -- host: next call comes from king george, virginia. caller: what i would like to say, what they said it earlier could not be further from the truth. they want the taxes from the
middle class. when you work overtime, they 50% of that from the middle class given the marginal tax rate. if you take comp time, they will not tax, plan and simple. that is why i wanted passed. the whole bunch of there is this respecting. those people do not have any of our best interests. , weyone to hate congress have got to ban these jerks. let's do it. the reason it will not pass if they cannot get that tax money. i used to take overtime pay. they were a lot better off taking the time off because they were not taxed. host: thank you for the call. this is from "the chicago
tribune." we want to bring this to your attention. host: our next call is from bill in nicholson, pa.. bill, what is your take on all of this? caller: i am against the comp time. i think a lot of people need that money to make ends meet. i think as a way to the streets
the overtime pay, it will be for the people who want it over the overtime pay, and a half. to hurt thes going middle class. i think it is a great thing that the president is going to veto the bill. americanbehind the worker. host of this story comes from "the hill " one newspaper -- host: this story comes from "the hill" newspaper. host: senator mccain says that his legislation would bring down
the monthly cable bill by allowing consumers to opt out of .hannels that they do not watch this network is funded by the cable industry, by the way. danny joins us from louisiana. the morning to you. thought that this law was proposed back during the reagan new administration when they shifted the tax burden from the wealthy to the working class. what they did for my company, they accrued all these days of overtime. takeer got the chance to my month vacation except for several years after they got in. crew all of this time
toward the end of the year. and taking the rest of the year off. people calling in are upset about this, both sides. now, they were upset about rich takingnot paying taxes, out social security money instead. there is one spot to explain this to the people. ok, thank you for the call. john has this point -- host: this editorial cartoonists from "the weekly standard." it is entitled "clinton, part 2." a play on the famous line by president bill clinton during the monica lewinsky investigation. here is the section -- secretary
of state saying that she did not have factual relations with the american people. sharyl attkisson, joining us in a couple of minutes. mike, kentucky, republican line, good morning. caller, how are you? host: fine, thank you. -- caller: how are you? host: fine, thank you. i worked under both systems. i think the point that people are missing is that this is a choice. caller: i worked under both systems. i think that the point the people are missing is that this is a choice. like the previous caller says, this is not taxed. kentucky is generally a democratic state. -- republican state. but i did work under a string of
democratic governors. no one thought that it was political, you know? it was the employee choice a lot of times. it from dayt choose to day, but occasionally you could switch. host: vivian has this point. the number oneis topic of "the new york times" best seller list. number five is open " dirty war is." #6 is "carry me." "the duct commander and family." minutesp in a couple of we will turn our intention to the benghazi investigation. sharyl attkisson and will be
with us. what can we learn from the situation in ohio? we have a lot to talk about on these sunday morning programs. nancy callow is keeping track of all of them. listen to the public affairs shows on c-span radio, sunday afternoon. >> that is right, topics include the latest on benghazi and immigration reform, as well as sexual harassment in the military. as you mentioned, c-span radio rears five of the programs beginning at noon with "meet the press." id start with congressman beryl eyes of and dianne feinstein, with thomas pickering, the co- chair of the benghazi review board. "this week,"on hear john mccain and jack reed,
as well as kirsten gillibrand. "2:00 p.m. fox news sunday." mike rogers, as well as congressman adam smith. ranking member of the house services committee, and rep elect mark sanford. the main republican senator, susan collins, thomas pickering, and tammy duckworth, democrat of illinois at. "face the nation," 4:00 p.m. with bob schieffer and bob gates. also on the program, assistant majority leader senator dick durbin. sunday network tv talk shows are brought to you as a public service for the network and c- span. withning at noon eastern "meet the press," 1:00 "to this
week," 2:00 "fox news sunday," for clock "face the nation," and listen to them all on c-span radio, 91 fm, nationwide satellite radio channel 119, download our free app for your smart phone or go online to c- span.org/radio. >> the first first lady to earn a college degree. during the civil war she was called the mother of the regimen. opposing slavery, she influenced her husband to switch from the whig party to the anti- anti-liberale republican party. meet the wife of rutherford b. hayes as we continue our series on first ladies. monday night, live, and on c- span radio and c-span.org.
host: good morning, thank you were much for being with us, sharyl attkisson. i wanted to begin with the reporting on benghazi from politico. they had five takeaways. number one, hillary clinton is now more than just the subtext. is that one of the story lines? guest: i think so. there have been changing versions of the talking points, but at the heart of primary investigations were instigated before the main ones were changed from the press focused when at the time her press spokesman was very aggressive in this e-mail exchange as to where she did and did not like. tomarily the references terrorism and al qaeda came from the talking points. is,: the other question what did she know about it? as we heard that night, the
phone call that she received was five or six days before susan rice was in the program. guest: we have a slowly building body of evidence that suggests that almost all the parties knew from the outset, not only knew but believed that this was likely an islamic extremist terrorist attack here and possibly in cairo. something that i learned looking at the talking points this week, it was a question that i had, with the cairo attacks inspired by the videos, no one believes or is saying that the benghazi attacks -- if you look at the talking points before there were change, a reference a warning that went out on september 10 that specifically said they had intelligence that islamic extremists were hadists break in as well. if we had a heads up on that,
where the events were inspired by youtube videos. host: let me share this with you, this comes from friday, the major appearance was on sunday the 16th. listen carefully to how she parsed the statement as delivered at the air force base. [video clip] >> this has been a difficult week for the state department and our country. we have seen the heavy assault on our post in benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. we have seen rage and violence directed at american embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. it is hard for the american people to make sense of that, because it is senseless. and it is totally unacceptable. ,he people of egypt, libya yemen, and tunisia did not trade
the tyranny of a dictator for the tyranny of a mob. reasonable people and responsible leaders in these countries need to do everything that they can to restore security and hold accountable those behind these violent acts. , two sharyl attkisson things, separating out the actions in benghazi and then speaking to the youtube video and then the story line coming 24 hours after the attack, because they both happened essentially simultaneously. host: i would like to know where the youtube video attribution came from because we are getting this evidence that no one on the ground that we spoke to, state department officers, diplomats and so on, they never said they thought it wit seems to me thato
solve the puzzle of what happened and what was being said, it looks like someone developed a story line very quickly, perhaps even that night after the attacks occurred, the bulk of the evidence shows that this was preplanned as an act of terrorism, but someone decided to guide the american public's viewpoint toward that video. one very specific piece of evidence on that point was when the family members came to the bodies of their loved ones here, to members were told by mrs. clinton, they say, we are going to get the person who made that awful video. time what theyhe did not say that there were going to get the people who killed your son. even if a video were in place, for the sake of argument why would to be after the maker of the video more than the people who committed the murders? it seems there was a story line being advanced. host: some sidebar stories,
gregory vance, demoted to a desk job. what do you know about him? guest: he is a lifelong government servant, he was quite enamored of hillary clinton for much of her time and really respected a lot of her until this and changed his opinion dramatically in the aftermath of these benghazi attacks because he thinks things were misrepresented. as you say, he was marginalized and demoted. he has been quietly dealing with this on his own for many months and it took a lot of courage for him to step forward. it is tough for people who step out of line to cover stories like this. host: this was congressman jim hearing thathe took place this past week. all of it available on our website, c-span.org.
[video clip] you were with lawyers prior to the congressman coming to visit in libya. >> yes. >> what did they it instructed to do? >> i was instructed not to allow the rso, acting deputy chief of mission and myself to be personally interviewed. host: sharyl attkisson, is this the beginning of a series of hearings? could there be a select committee for democrats? interest andvel of so on changes from day to day. the democrats are in a tough position. i think that some of them, well, they said so, there are some disturbing things about this, but politically i think they are in damage control mode, looking for other ways to deflect the blame and the fault
going on here, really doing some serious damage to the political party and obama administration. host: our first caller is from falls church, va.. actually, patricia next in minneapolis. good morning. caller: good morning. i cannot believe that it says investigative correspondent. this story should have been investigated and no one but the press and liberals believed that nonsense about the video. believe the you are just now talking about it. you avoided the story like the plague because he wanted obama to get reelected. this story can out in september. also -- host: i have to jump in, one of the reasons we have sharyl attkisson on -- host: but i mean -- caller: but i mean the station. guest: let me speak to that.
cbs was very aggressive. people either did not notice at the time or have forgotten, but we did quite a great deal of coverage in the october timeframe. major news, including interviews with colonel andrew would, the colonel whose team was pulled out, despite requests to stay. we have definitely been on the story. people are now paying more attention to it and for some reason cbs is only now picking up on it. host: we have been dealing with this issue as well since the initial reports. thank you for the call. rep. elijah cummings is the ranking democrat and he says the whole thing is political. this is what he has to say. theill come back to representative in just a moment. the next caller comes from
connecticut, democratic line, good morning. caller: i was wondering about the hicks testimony. there was some conflicting stuff coming from that. when he said that he was demoted and all of that stuff, the people in his office had complaints about him, in the hearing itself he said he did it for family reasons. where was he telling the truth? guest: i think that anyone who thinks that a man can go from the no. 2 position at a dangerous post in libya and suddenly find himself at a desk job that he would have preferred not to have, denying that the timing is purely coincidental, that does not seem credible to me and that is not his view either. when you are on the inside you know what is happening to you. you can judge for yourself if you think that he is somehow
indeed tainted. i do not think so, based on the knowledge i have, but you are free to think that. host: this is from elijah cummings from the past week, the ranking democrat on the committee. [video clip] campaign-scale media that is not designed to investigate what happened in a responsible, bipartisan way, but rather these are unfounded accusations to smear public officials. let me be clear, i am not questioning the motives of our witnesses, i am questioning the motives of those who want to use their statements for political purposes. the chairman has accused the administration of intentionally withholding military assets that could have helped to save lives on the night of the attack. i say for political reasons. of all the irresponsible allegations from the past few weeks, this is the most
troubling. based on what our military commanders have told us, this allegation is simply untrue. host: sharyl attkisson, that gives you a sense of the political side of all of this. caller: -- guest: we are passed to the days when this accusation can come out about it being called political. when either party does something and the other party questions it as wrong, it is immediately dismissed as political. toy do want to steer people this idea that there is an agenda here. clearly, they cannot argue with some of the facts. a lot of unanswered questions. host: speaker boehner, now demanding e-mails. guest: eight months in, good.
but there has been a lot of discussion from republicans on the hill, marching together for the leadership to pursue his issue in the rank-and-file committees that have been pushing to do so. cohesiveso with a approach, picking up some steam last week. host: if you are just tuning in, our guest is sharyl attkisson. her work is also available online at cbsnews.com. you have also ♪[video clip] >> something is happening in the world.
host: any sense of why? interesting that that was put together back in mid-september. the same questions they raise back in are the same watches their posing right now. guest: i do not have any insights and that. you only presume that they did some sort of polling. they decided it would work more against them been for them. host: an action and deception -- having failed for lead to review what happened.
they produced a report that was somewhere between radically incomplete and positively misleading. the white house speaker referring to this review board. a lot of holes already in that document. guest: it will be on face the nation later today. i'm sure he will be asked questions on that later. i'm not sure that was clear that the public at the time. they had certain 30s. they did not interview some people. iny drew some conclusions their report on the less about what could and could not happen with speaking to the people on the ground whom i know the answers. i think there are some questions to be asked. congress does want to call the office back and ask some of the things and see health the road the review was. host: we ought to point out that you will be on "face the nation"
later this morning. he could also hear the program on c-span radio at noon eastern time. john is joining us from florida. the morning. caller: good morning. -- the cia report seems to indicate that we were warned. i am amazed that more of that is not being brought out here at the second thing is -- preparedness. this is libya. this is a dangerous country. four years, the military scrambled. -- a there should be a war contingency plan. the military leaders told her -- tell us they cannot get there. how could they not get there you go -- there? this is libya. this is just like 9/11. after the first plane hit, they
knew. the intelligence committee there were other planes up there. know i am bringing in the columbia thing, but we go into space, we have a hole in the wing, we do not have sensors on the wings, we do not have the capability to do space launches. there is a link here where the government is falling down. i just do not understand why we are not prepared for the things to go in and just save these people. host: ok, john, thank you. on twoi think he hit unanswered questions. you hit on two key points. one of them, the warning. it appears as though, especially from the early versions of the talking point, the cia and petraeus had issued warnings and in essence done a part of the job and immediately part of the e-mail exchange -- the state department was worried that that information would be used at the public would say, why did you not heed the
warnings, why did you draw back on security. i would love to hear more from onraeus because an article friday, there was in a mellow stage with him or he was very discouraged by the talking. he was sent the final version, and he said something like -- where he is being told that they cut out a lot of information that he had approved to be in there, most of it about the caa -- cia having done their job. he said something like -- this is not what the hell asked for hillthey wanted -- the asked for. and they said they won't even let us tell them about the warnings to cairo. linked up thead talking points. it is a huge issue still. the administration and arv both say nothing more had been done. everything was tried. but i continue to have a constant stream of special
forces, others to know that world in that region, and insist that they do have workers ready to move quickly. that is their job. millions of dollars are spent to keep them on alert. they should have and could have been moved. that is at odds with the administration both the account. host: let's go back to the talking points. the road that document, who signed off on it, and when did it get to susan rice? .uest: i don't have the answers we still don't have the constant trail. there is a dark hole during the deputies meeting on september 15, which i think was a saturday morning after the talking points being developed on a friday. the white house has not said -- we can assume obviously top deputy officials and the agency. there was confusion friday, which was another red flag for me as an investigative reporter. the state department was insisting all day -- i believe he was hillary clinton's former
deputy chief of staff. there is a lot of tack about that he was not there. the press officer from state department was saying that is bogus. even the white house will tell you he was not there. later in the day, the white house issued a statement saying jake sullivan was there. i find a very strange. i we will back to the state department, and the spokesman said, my bad, i had not asked jake before i answered the question. so why did the state department go from insisting one of the deputies was not at the meeting, why did the white house than contradict them? there are a lot of unanswered questions. insists thatney the only changes they made was changing the word "conflict -- toflict -- "consulate" "diplomatic post." guest: you have to watch the words they use.
they do not hold the pen in hand and write the changes themselves. clearly they did take part in these changes. while it is important to know who exactly did what, in general, we now know the basic thing which is the obama administration, whoever it was, drastically changed these talking points, pointed america toward a video when there was no evidencegible,, hard that that was the case, and did not convene the counterterrorism security group the night during the attacks, which is required by presidential directive. they have not explained to the satisfaction of some people involved why they would not call up the counterterrorism experts as required so that things could be courted native. host: so why? why not simply come out and say this was an act of terrorism, we will get these individuals? guest: it is hard to say.
we were something like eight weeks before the election. they immediately went into manage this issue mode. obviously, they wanted to handle it in the best way they could substantially, but they were also thinking about what this could do as an election issue. so i guess those two things were converging. it is hard to say why they went with one narrative versus another, and would things have been better if they had simply told a fuller part of the story as originally planned. or would that have exploded on president obama before the election? this is one from one of our viewers saying -- these reports say you are being pressured by cbs bosses to back down on the cbs -- on the benghazi story appeared what can you tell us? guest: no one has pressured me one way or the other.
executivesconsider have been encouraging in general of the kind of reporting i do. there is a diverse range of -- of viewsnions and opinions within cbs news. it is hard to his plan on a given day why something is news versus something else. they have a lot of stories to choose from. that is their prerogative. so there is a lot of discussion about what best serves the public. i have not received any executive pressure to stop doing benghazi story. you haveyou feel editorial freedom to do the story you want both on cbs news and the cbs news website? guest: i do. i have a lot of editorial freedom. all reporters, with their own stories, and then you have to basically shop into a broadcast and find a bride that that wants home for them. that is harder at sometimes than it is at others.
generally the web is an easy sale because they want content and they do not have a lot of time constraints. it is more difficult with the other broadcast. -- makeu have read sure you read the "washington post" profile of our guest, sharyl attkisson. i think one of the things that working in washington has aggravated me with trying to get to the truth. and this is true across administrations, whether they are democratics or republican, they work for us, not the other way around. i think the public is owed a lot of information collected on our
behalf, such as about benghazi. and it is guarded by the keepers of the information as it's a -- as if they somehow own it and will be privileged over you that you cannot see it. for reasonable, information touest that i have made facilitate the release of public information. i get pretty much zero response. that is at the start of the obama and mr. asian he seems to have perfected it. georgetrue also under bush. it is very difficult to get public information, even when you apply the freedom of information law. time will tell. i am here today, there tomorrow. as long as i there wish to have a home there. host: jimmy is joining us next traveling, texas. caller: good morning. i was just curious.
i have not heard anywhere else, anyone mention the fact that paula broadwell -- and i cannot be the only one who has seen the video -- that there were insurgents being held by intelligence somewhere there down the street, across the street, somewhere close to the ambassador's location. that is what the people were trying to do is recover the people who were being held. if that is the case, if i'm not an executivere was order issued by obama that there were no more people held at sites like that. since that scandal broke, none of that has come to light. guest: i did look into that to the extent that i was able to. two points on that -- i talked to some sources i have their. i don't have the whole story. but the ones i spoke to were not aware of anyone being held as described. our two, to your point that the
united states is not supposed to do that sort of thing, i was also told by sources that sometimes if something like that is done, we could be using maybe you could call it a loophole where we use local forces to actually do the holding, so we could say that they are not really in the u.s. control. again, i have not been able to find out whether that is true or not, but the people i've spoken to were not aware of anybody being held. host: how my questions you have on that list you go -- list? guest: 25 questions. host: do you want to go through some of them? guest: when was ambassador stephan's body recovered? what are the known details? a month later we have virtually no information on how he died, what time he was found, where his body was taken, there is some confusion over whether a
hospital, with the dead or alive at that point. there was a phone call maide on his phone to the embassy where somebody in arabic said "he is here." maybe the people at the hospital, which was controlled by what they call the "bad guys" there were trying to learn a rescue attempt, so they decided not to go to the hospital to recover him at that time because they set some sort of trap. i think that is strange. who made the decision not to convene the terrorism -- counterterrorism group the night of the benghazi attack? which is a presidential directive. why would the protocol not followed? the white house quick talking to me altogether. they said they felt it was not as robert risers on counterterrorism were in the mix. some say we were the ones are supposed to be on the phone,
we would have been able to get resources mobilized, we are the ones who could've told the principles exactly what is out there. i know for a fact some of the principals who are making these decisions, either they were not being truthful with me or they do not know about all of the resources because we discussed on the telephone when i asked them why certain resources were not use, and indicated they have never heard of such a thing, they did not know the terms i was using. later when i came back to them, they said we do know the terms. they just seemed confused. the counterterrorism experts know all of that. they insist they would have been able to coordinate some sort of response that perhaps would've been better than what we had. n e-mail tou sent a the communications office, do they respond all the echo -- at all? guest: no, not now. host: why did they refrain from -- why did the white house not just refrain from commenting until a new something -- until
they knew something about the video? --st: among the exclamation explanations, they said they do not want to interfere with the investigation and they do not want to make ties to think that were tenuous. but the ties to the terrorists, which were actually the strongest, and instead hating to-- handing -- hanging on ties that were tenuous. i do not make a lot of sense. host: you follow the story of ronald reagan's iran-contra investigation. if the white house digging itself into a hole? are they continuing to use different barriers to get the full story out? say.: it is hard to if the media loses interest tomorrow, and may all quietly go away again. if congress decides it is not good for them to hammer away on it, it could fade away like it has off and on over the past eight months or died not know how big it is for the obama
mistress or mrs. clinton. host: good morning, andrew. caller: good morning. i am curious. nobody is looking at the other side of the coin that when you stand back and look at the picture, you have a north african oil exporting country that we, together with the french and british, have recently destabilized. and whether political or military decision that we did not have access there, or for that matter, that the british or french did not. it is reminiscent of the suez crisis. guest: you have to assume that it is true that we did not have access there. i'm not sure that that has been firmly decided by all people concerned, although that is definitely the claim. of energya lot concerns there. i do not pretend to understand all of those am a but there has been some discussion of part of
the motivation of us getting involved over qaddafi could have motivated in part by other natural gash as a pipeline that libya was getting ready to join that involve the russians, that could audibly threaten the supply to europe. things like that. but i cannot say i know a lot about. there could be a lot of other things in place as to why we went into libya besides the obvious reasons. host: two months after general pretorius was critical of the white house scrubbing the talking points memo, he is out of a job. any connection between the two? guest: i always wondered. you would be brain-dead if you did not wonder if there is a connection. now i see how unhappy he seems to be in e-mail that the talking points for change within a fairly short period of time. also, right before he lost his job, he had -- his agency had
promised to release the surveillance video of the godly, which has never been released. we were supposed to get declassified version. by him being ousted, we never got that. that is one of my questions on the list. for -- additionally, cbs has repeatedly requested promised surveillance video, but it has not been provided. we've also asked for information which is not been responded to peer so why is that video -- a version that could be seen by the public around the november time frame, why haven't never been released? coincided with the trays being ousted from office -- from office. wondering about the timing. there is a reference to the president speaking to general petraeus thursday, november 8, 2012, about his problems in the sexual scandal. one of my questions -- what the president aware of petraeus'
prior to theblems day that they made him aware that they knew. did petraeus have this hanging over his head -- how long did he have it hanging over his head? that the administration knew something embarrassing about him and were for the moment keeping it quiet. for him anyen to follow the line on something he may be did not agree with? host: what general petraeus respond to any questions you go -- questions? guest: i have not tried. host: nora is calling from demo -- on the democrats line from new york. caller: this is a farce. and set of looking for not only looking for what happened, but how we cannot have this happen again. i would like to go out to the reporter there. there are over 10 embassies of
diplomatic attacks in george and, -- under george bush, a 60 people were killed. i never heard this outraged when george bush was president. he took us to war, which drained our economy. and all this with president nowa and bringing him hillary clinton, the former secretary of state, to me, it is more political than getting at the truth. the republicans cut the aid to diplomatic security, but nobody is questioning or saying anything about that. that should be investigated also. guest: i think that has been discussed. i have heard it discussed repeatedly and brought up early on as far as the funding question. leave thiss free to is entirely political and to believe that clinton should be kept out of this.
as a reporter, i see her as key to this issue simply because of the position she held at the time that this happened. host: if she runs, clearly this is going to be the first line of questioning when she sits down with reporters. what is your question to her? i think i would like to have her -- this is not so much a question as a dialogue. explain everything that happened and i from start to finish. the night of the attack more so than the security, although we have some of those questions answered. i really want to know -- we don't know president obama's actions the night of the attack appeared we do not have a lot of information about hers. i would like to have a timeline from start to finish on that. also, if i'd a single question, can you show us the evidence that you used to develop your speeches and stories and discussions about the youtube video? one question i asked the white house related to that is about the video -- i think it is a
really interesting question, maybe a half step off of the main point. but the administration is reported to ask that the video be removed from youtube. if true, what does the administration do with other videos or future material that it mayh wereot published that were none the less legal? told the mrs. clinton video -- told the families about the video, what was her understanding at the time what would be the grounds for arrest? if summit he made a perfectly legal video that was offensive to some people, what was her idea in her head how she would be arresting this person? those questions have not been answered. host: also on the panel, the question greg hicks asks wednesday. here is a portion of that hearing. [video clip] >> following my return to the united states, i attended chri'' funeral in san francisco, then i came back to washington because
assistant secretary jones summoned me to her office and she delivered a blistering critique of my management style. i do not know-- why larry pope would want you to come back. understande did not why anybody at the aaa would want me to come back. after the attack and before the attacks, you had all kinds of praise and your leadership. you got a call from secretary clinton, from the president raising you for your service and how you handled things. was there a seminal moment in your mind to win all of this raise an appreciation turned into something else? beganhindsight, think it after i asked the question about rice pose the question -- rice's statement on a sunday morning programs. host: he had set his jaw dropped. guest: a lot of people said the
same thing. he had never reported such a thing. ambassador stephens, the phone call to the indices, hicks says he is confident if there had -- ofny sort of protocol protest, thetould've been to evacuate the industry. so hicks is confident that it not happen. imagine their surprise when they hear ambassador rice saying these things. hicks was very worried about offending libya's leader saying quite the opposite that this was probably motivated by a terrorist attack motivated by terrorism. , roll one in diplomatic circles if you do not hundred and your host country like that. rule one in diplomatic circles is you do not contradict your host country like that. there is less evidence for that than what he was saying.
host: you broke the story of hillary clinton traveling to bosnia. you are the trip back in 1995. explain what happened. guest: we went on a trip back -- was that 1995? a long time ago. we went to bosnia. chelsea clinton was with us. it was a good trip. into thefarther demilitarized zone than her husband, the president, had at that point. it was an interesting trip. there was some potential problem for danger they're just because people could be firing at you. it is unlikely, but they did warn us when we were landing of certain things. assault landing, stall take off, that five sort of thing. she wasrs later, when running for president, i guess she was telling a story about how she had dodged snipera.
came home from an overseas trip, and it was my husband who said -- did you get shot at in a trip that you are on? i said no. and he said well, mrs. clinton was giving speeches and said you guys were shot at. i said, she must be talking about a different trip. if there's any risk at all, they would not have had had a slant. we were not on a mandatory trip and chelsea clinton was on the plane with us. we would have flown somewhere else. we landed, it was so safe that we landed on the way, mrs. clinton visited with local schoolchildren who were on the runway, photographs with the troops that were there. her account that she was giving, she said that she had dodged bullets and that they had had to duck and run to the car. i look through my files, and we have video from that day, so we were able to show that there was nothing of the sort happening. i did not go looking for that cover politics, but i had to do that one because it fell into my lap.
host: let me conclude with the benghazi hearings. five way five hours of testimony this week. where does this go next? both the political side and the investigative side? guest: i cannot even begin to predict what happened then who decides, whose advantage this is or how far it goes. , i investigative wise believe the arb authors will be called back to congress. think both democrats and republicans have said they have questions. so that may happen. there are a lot of other whistleblowers who are talking to people like me and people in congress who are not yet ready to come forward, but there are people in the cia, the defense department, and other state department officials who have more to say. some of it they cannot tell me. is classified or secret or they are not comfortable.
that basically say there is more to this story. so i think we keep going on this, we might find out more information that we do not know today. of cbsharyl attkisson news, you have always been gracious with your time on c- span. we appreciate it. the come back again. will be on "face the nation." you can listen to it on c-span radio. when we come back, we will turn our situation to the -- our attention to the situation in cleveland. later, philip mudd, the author of a new book on homegrown terrorism as the "washington journal" continues the sunday morning on maybe the 12. we are back in a moment. ♪ >> post-9/11, a lot more people cared about national security issues then was the case before.
all of a sudden, there was a market for former cia folks, former defense intelligence agencies, and for some -- and former ages it all of those guys who were used to operating in the shadows saw a market for their services as commentators, so there was this somewhat uncomfortable interaction between the agencies and these usually former employees. that the time, i felt waterboarding with something that we needed to do. as time has passed, and after september 11 has moved farther and farther into history, i think i have changed my mind, and i think that waterboarding is something we should not be doing. >> why do you say that now? >> because we are americans and we are better than that. >> this is a guy who i think by all accounts meant well, who served his country well by most
accounts for 15 years in some very dangerous situations, who risked his life to take on al qaeda and pakistan and terrorism. and he is going to prison for 30 months leaving his young family behind. >> this weekend on q&a, scott shane on his feature story "from spy to source to convict." the story of jealousy i dash of jailed cia officer john kiriakou. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome carolyn atwell-davis with the center for missing and exploited children. her story continues to get a lot of attention in ohio. the big question everyone is asking is how could this have happened. guest: we would love to know at
the national center how this could have happened. there are people out there who prey on oury duo children and will take them and keep them for many years. at the national center, when we heard the wonderful news that the three women had been recovered, we were thinking when jc do guard -- jacie captive by was being sex offender in california. these children were captive at the time we were rejoicing in her recovery. many many others. we wonder how many are still out there right now who are listening to the news and wondering when they are going to be recovered. law enforcement just does wonderful work. they cannot find everyone, but they are doing a much better work now than they were doing 40 years ago. we have much better laws, much better policies in place. they are trained much better in these cases.
find all of them, but everyone is doing great work. guest: -- host: it goes without saying the first couple of hours are critical. guest: absolutely. a study of the subset of the child abduction homicides in 2006, 76% of the children who were murdered -- the murder occurs in the first three hours. it is critical to law enforcement to move very very quickly. if there is an investigation under, what should police do, and what are they doing right now that should be standard protocol? agenciesw enforcement are following protocol. there is training involved about what you do first. when we get a call, we get a call from a parent at the national center. we say, have you spoken to law enforcement. m put them into the ncic, the national crime lawbase, available to every
enforcement agency in the country. very important to get that child into ncic, that way any possible lead, citing by anyone, law enforcement in any jurisdiction, can move immediately on it. host: in one point that is getting a lot of attention is when the dispatcher said we will get a car there and soon as one is freed up. what is wrong with that? guest: i cannot speak for what was going on in a dispatch office. obvious the the dispatcher did not know the critical nature of the incident. immediately the next sentence was i have been missing, i have been abducted, -- of course they dispatch the car immediately. host: they were there within a minute. guest: absolutely. host: what should the cleveland apartment have done that they did not do. guest: i do not know that they did anything that they should not have done. they followed up on leads. in 2008, detectives along with
two fbi agents from cleveland came to the national center and week hosted a comprehensive case review of the amanda berry case as well is another case that remains unsolved -- ashley plummer. is very possible they were connected. we have no information that they were. but ashley plummer has still not been found. we went overew -- every single lead received by both the national center and law-enforcement. we also brought in other experts, behavioral analysis, forensics, prosecutors, biometrics, all looking at every lead that was possibly available to breathe new life into the investigation. so law enforcement took advantage of every opportunity, every lead that they had and every resource available. what this says is how complicated it is that what is going on today is that many
people possibly have information, like charles ramsey who saw and heard her cries for help, her cries out of that door. these people possibly have information but they do not know that they have information. every possible piece of information could lead to a recovery of a child. it is not necessarily that the police do something wrong or failed to do something. it is that these cases are complicated and it is very possible for people to hold children captive in their homes for many years. host: what is not obligated. this is a picture of the house from "the washington post." you can see how close this picture -- close this neighborhood is. it helps to prevent this kind of tragedy. it is called -- how well do you know your neighbors? what should the neighbors have done that they did not do? guest: it is hard to say what kind of information that they had. these girls were chained. th captive, they
were starved, beaten, sexually assaulted. for many, many, many years. their source of life was that man who was holding them captive. food, water. it is not easy to understand what these girls were going through. and if there were ever opportunities for them to reach out. it is also difficult as neighbors to say where do we piece -- pierce that veil of privacy, assuming that something is going on. it is not easy to say. people can point fingers after the fact. it is not easy at the time to understand what is going on. what is important to remember is that everybody can play a role in prevention and reaching out and understanding that we can all help to find some of these
children if we pay attention and we talk to one another. [inaudible] ?ost: what is the federal role what is the responsibility of state and local government? congress passed and the president signed into law the national child approach assistance act. what that does is it makes requirements on the state and local and federal law enforcement. enring missing children into ncic as well as taking those reports. , beforehe missing child adam walsh in florida, before the missing children of atlanta in the 1980's, there was no way to put missing children into ncic. in 1982, the missing children's act changed that. the national child -- act then put additional requirements about the reporting of these children. it requires that states cannot to takeaiting period
a report of a missing child. they should be placed in ncic within two hours. that is a direct result of the study. it also said that a child should not be removed from ncic solely on age. children werewas being placed into ncic, missing child report were taken when the child was 7, 8 years old. if the child was not recovered, by the time of their 18th birthday, sometimes law enforcement would remove them from ncic. congress changed that law. if that you cannot take the child out based solely on age. our guest is vice president for the national center for missing and if what it children, carolyn atwell- davis.
are from either open. you can send us an e-mail at journal@c-span.org and it isn't that they -- you and you can send us a tweet at @cspanwj. phone numbers are (202) 585- 3880, (202) 585-3881. lily put out some numbers and have you responde. 800,000 children reported missing every year. 2000 everyday. an estimated 200,000 are abducted by family members. an estimated 58,000 by nonfamily members, primarily for a sexual motive. guest: that is called the miss march study. that was from some years ago. it was an estimate based on numbers at the time. the number of missing children, and other words age 17 and under, and in cic database in between -- is approximately
500,000. host: that is such a high number. guest: it is. many children are ducted and released right away. we also take into account that it is very possible that a necessarilynot mean a long-term objection. there are many types of adult and -- of abduction. babysitter leave them on a playground, finds them a short time later with a family friend. type ofe not all the kidnappings like these girls in cleveland. there are proximately an estimated 116 of those objections every year. that is to a week. that is still unacceptable. but it is not the 2000 a day scary. let me go back to ariel castro. he had two brothers, family and
the neighborhood. nobody knew? guest: that is a really good question. i would like to know what they knew. and what, if anything, they could've done. you would think this family would have done something about this. if not the neighbors. certainly, i think a good lesson for everyone is to get to know your neighbors. i would like to think that awareness is increased now, that they stop and think, perhaps i know something, perhaps there is something i should pay more attention to. get a little bit more information. maybe call law enforcement. that is not mean that law enforcement can't resolve a case just because someone calls and says i think there is something strange going on. there are limits to what law enforcement can do with someone 's home. they have to have a reason to believe there is a crime or a victim there. like it is important for everybody to be vigilant, to get to know your neighbors, to know what is going on. what is equally important is to
teach children how they can take care of their own safety if you give them the information. give them tools, tell them to say no to an adult. tell them that there are ways to stay safe. we took about eight years worth of attempted abductions that were reported in the media. about a thousand of them. we confirm them with law enforcement that these were attempted abductions of children. of those thousand -- of those 8000, 32% of them, the occurred toduction or from school or school related activity. many occurred between 2:00 and 7:00 at night. that is when children are not in school, and there are least least likely to be supervised by an adult. so it is important to take these to say and -- as lessons what can we do to keep children safe.
the buddy system never walk alone. it is ok to say no to an adult. if you feel the situation is something that makes you uncomfortable. host: let me ask you before we take a call, these three children, they were children and now young adults. what short and long-term type of mental care will they need? guest: they need a lot of therapy. they need time and privacy. the media needs to stay away from them. they need to get a specialized type of treatment to help them reincorporated back into the world, into regular, normal life. that is going to take a long time, and it is important for everybody to realize that they need that time. the best that everybody can do is to leave them alone, let them achieve a new kind of normalcy. they've had a very strange kind of normal for a long time, and they need to readjust now to a new normal, the normal that it should be. host: a call from biloxi,
mississippi. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i was wondering if there is any correlation between the kidnappings and the immigrant population. it seems that the entire area of cleveland was a subdivision. is there any correlation between other cultures and the frequency of kidnappings of those countries? thank you. guest: no. there is no correlation between any kind of a cultural predisposition for kidnapping. there is no evidence of that. what is important is to remember that children of all races are abducted and are missing every day in this country. the media tends, and forcefully, to focus on many of the children who are caucasian. we at the national center try
to work with the media to try to get out information about children who are missing of all races. this is a crime that crosses all demographics. it is important to pay attention to every missing child case. host: are guest is a graduate of western university, our next call is mark from massachusetts. good morning. caller: i agree with empowering the children, but it sounds like these girls knew this guy. at least some of them did. what are the maximum penalties for these long-term objection -- abduction, rape, torture -- is there a death penalty? and you feel there should be stricter laws on the books? guest: i do not know what the full range of charges would be against mr. castro or his brothers. i have heard reports that it may be a murder charge based on the
miscarriages, that at least one of the girls suffered. , the strictest penalty will be imposed, i believe, in this case. jaycie duggard, the girl who was held for years. imprisoned fors mold for years. he is not getting out of prison. there are strong laws on the books for the type of cases. i believe this will be dealt with appropriately. >> i don't want to just -- host: i do not want to generalize, but most of these cases involve men taking younger girls. why? is it a sense of empowerment, is it a sense of control? what motivates anyone to abduct a child? guest: the behavioral analysis
unit spent a great deal of time talking about that question. i have no background in psychology but from what i wear , thererom what i read is something involving the control of young girls. lure was some type of a being used to get these girls into the car, whether it was an acquaintance relationship or something. so i think these people do have a need for control, an extreme need for control. it is important to try to learn more. for psychologists to try to talk to these people and try to understand what is behind them so that we can prevent these things from happening in the future. , caregivers,ents grand parents, what are the red flags? surely this can happen anywhere.
what should people be on the lookout for? guest: it is important to recognize that children are safer today than at any time in our nations history, despite what we hear. law enforcement has better resources today, and we know a lot more about it. people are more vigilant as the result of reading the cases. it is important not to scare your children or be scared. commonsense vigilance. common sense is what is important. do not leave the children alone. always supervise them. nothing can replace parental supervision of children. when they are not in your care, when they are at school, there was an adult, it is important to empower the children. they're in control of their their own safety. without scaring them, play what if scenarios. what if you were walking along the street and someone drive up and says will you help me find my lost puppy? believe it or not, that is one of the common lore is still being used. it works on children. what would you dotalk to your ct
what would they would do without scaring them. say, you arent to smart, you are a smart girl. you know how to deal with that situation. i'm proud of you. role-play like that periodically. it will give them the sense that they can have a say in their own safety without being scared. host: our next caller is from misery. -- missouri. caller: i would like to take this conversation to another level. instead of talking about, and a perpetrators against children. let's talk about the elite political organized pedophilia rings that exist as talked , lincoln 1980's savings and loan kindle in omaha, nebraska, which involved lawrence king, the guy for the at the gop national
convention. let's talk about johnny gosh and his connection to george bush. host: i'm going to jump in because i'm not familiar with this. guest: johnny gosh was one of our cases. i'm not aware of any political connection. host: pete is us from illinois. good morning to you. -- pete is joining us from illinois. the percentages you are talking about, abduction and family members, what is the percentage in divorce cases? familythat would be the reduction number. there is an estimated 2000 -- 200,000 american children abducted by a family member every year. great sets have been made in these cases as well over the years in terms of state laws
that now prevent one parent from getting a custody order in one state -- it prevents them from going into another state and getting a custody order. now states will respect the custody orders of other states so that it is not possible to do that anymore. international child abduction is .nother issue that parents there are treaties in place among the u.s. and several countries about the return of the children. they're not always successful, but there is a mechanism to enforce the return of the children. host: let's go back to the law on the books here and get your reaction. first and foremost, law enforcement shall report missing children to the national criminal database. states cannot establish a acceptingriod before a missing child report. a. guest: there was a time when you would report you're missing
child to law enforcement and they would say, he just ran away, he is upset, he will turn up eventually. we now know that that is not necessarily the case. because their children, they are a vulnerable segment of society that must be treated specially. so we cannot take away and you cannot wait. you have to take that report right away from a parent or the guardian. inter-them into in cic right away. ncic.o host: and you cannot take them out of the database based solely on age. the reports into include the name, sex, height, weight, eye color, hair color, other pertinent facts. they need to be entered into the database within two hours and made available to the state missing persons clearinghouse immediately. guest: every state has a missing persons their house as a result -- clearinghouse as a result of
the last 40 years. this is critical because they do maintain all of the information in that state and can't act as a act as a- and can liaison. they do wonderful work. ,ne thing i would like to add looking at ohio's laws, ohio recently changed its law as a result of the interest of the attorney general, former senator mike dewine. they actually have a law now that says missing from foster care or state care. they must be reported to law- enforcement as well. the sharing of information between law-enforcement and child where full -- welfare agencies is huge because many of these children do run away. important that they also be recognized as a vulnerable cover even more vulnerable segment of our population. host: in light of the case in
cleveland, ohio, we are focusing on the issue of missing and exploited children. our guest is carolyn atwell- davis. you can join in on the conversation here we have divided our phone line's regionally. you can also send us a tweet or an e-mail. our e-mail is journal@c- span.org. there is this from jim. do children receive warnings in schools or any institutions or places other than from responsible parents? states have laws requiring the incorporation into their educational curriculum of abduction prevention information or just generally safety information. whether it is implemented just depends on the local school districts and whether they can do that, whether they have the funds to do that. there are many free resources available about child safety. does have a center resource called net smart. parents and educators can go online and download information about teaching children how to play safe.
there are a lot of all my tools as well. children can go on and learn about situations, what to do in situations. there needs to be more peer it we believe there should be a lot more education about how to keep children safe in school. again, this is in hindsight. a number of missed clues in terms of ariel castro. police facing shrinking budgets. they get a lot of calls every. let's go back to protocol. what should police departments do that they did not do in cleveland, ohio? what can we learn about all of this? guest: i do not know what they did not do. i to not know what information they had that would've been credible enough to follow up on. i know in missing child cases, all law-enforcement, federal, state, local, everybody comes together and works very quickly on these cases. nobody pushes on the cited says no. believe me, basically higher priority in every law-
enforcement agency. whether or not they had enough information information to go into that house, i do not know. if they had it, they would have gone in. but entering the child into ncic, following up on leads, distributing information. we worked with the cleveland police department and blast faxing tens of thousands of locations. within a 90 mile radius of the last known sighting of amanda berry. we put missing children on posters for them to distribute. we believe those cases were late. , itrmation was disseminated was followed up. we did an age progression of both of those girls who were reported. michelle was not reported to us. but amanda and gina were. the picture when a new work reported -- when they were reported missing was no longer valid. we do an age progress in --
progression photo. we redistribute those photos with the updated age progression in the hopes that somebody will find them. so i believe that all of those tools were used by the cleveland police department. there are many others that all law enforcement uses. host: there was also a six-year- old girl who was born reportedly in the bathtub. when of the questions is did she receive any vaccinations, did she receive any kind of medical care, are there any records of her seeing a physician in those first couple of years? guest: if the child was taken to a pediatrician, the pediatrician would've been under a statutory mandate to report anything they suspected as child abuse or non- north meds -- or malnourishment. , that dr.uspicious would've had to report to law enforcement. host: our next call is from a vermont. john, good morning.
caller: is there anything in common with these people that lead to themd being called out? i know that law enforcement and even some tv programs try to catch these people that try to have sex with underage girls. is there anything that is common orthem that people could see anything of that nature? host: thank you, john. guest: that is a good question. i hope the behavioral analysis experts will take a good look at this, will look at what we know about others who have done this to children, and try to learn and see what we can do about it. in terms of prevention and noticing things, obviously we want to have the -- you want to
be very careful around people that pay a in an ornament amount of attention to the child. the fact of the matter is most aredren that we know of abused by somebody that they know. with legitimate access to that child. , parent, apparent's friend somebody who has a reason to be in that child's life and to that child trusts implicitly. that is what it is important to teach safety lessons to the children. it is not about the relationship, it is about the conduct. teach them it is ok to say no. teach them to get out of the situation they feel uncomfortable about. it is important to recognize that this is a tragic situation. y of cases.
the majority of children are victimized by someone very close to them whom they should be able to trust. >> have you heard of a situation where these young children were chained in the basement. they were locked up down there. >> that happened. in long island a. curl wrote a book. -- a girl wrote a book. she is adopted when she is 11 and did she was obstructed when she was 11. -- she was affected when she was 11. understand the human psyche. important for experts to try to get whatever information they can out of castro and others. >> if you are interested in getting more information,
missingkids.com. ryan on the phone from dallas tx. i had heard that there were two calls to the police, one of them saying that their neighbor had two girls chained up in the backyard naked and the police came to the door, nobody answered, and walked away. couple of incidents like that. i think the solutions you are bringing up are not going to happen in these kinds of neighborhoods. these are more urban wilderness than anything else. more questions from the cleveland police department. i do not know what kind
of leads the cleveland police have. the national center is not an investigative agency. have heardow, i there were several reports. it is very common for there to be people talking about things they might have done. it is important to wait for the full report. host: has ever alert made a difference? guest: it is a wonderful, successful program. over 800 children have been recovered as a direct result. this is a subset of cases. there is a specific criteria where law enforcement can issue and and alert. -- an amber alert.
it has to be a child who safety -- whose safety is threatened. in many cases what we have heard is that the child often is simply released wednesday and alert goes out. -- is released when the emperor alert goes out. -- when the amber colored goes up. >> martha is joining us from iowa. good morning. caller: i have a question that might bring up a number of issues. i am wondering if any research is being done on tractable microchips in children -- trackable microchips in children? guest: we have heard some commercial companies would like to promote this as a safety measure. the national center for
exploited children is concerned about this type of measure because it might lead to dismemberment of the child if there is ar suspects chip in the child. it also has civil liberty issues. when you take your child to a safety day and they get a fingerprint and a little card that has all the physicial information that you can give to law enforcement, parents should be in control of that information. what you are a care giver
these individuals did to make sure that there is not even hint that anything wrong is going on if they provide care or batons? >> we do support a national criminal history check of anyone who is working with children. because background checks don't theys catch everyone -- are simply one tool. there are policies childhood organizations can put into place, such as having two staffers around children at all time. - it's suggested .here be written policies anything that is even inappropriate, whether there is
any kind of abuse or not, if there is anything inappropriate in this cause for dismissal. host: date is joining us from delaware. good morning. you for taking my call. going back to the foster care. do these reporting systems also apply to children who are under state care? many times disabled children who theye adult-aged, are under the same type of reporting system? >> the federal law we were talking about refers to children and college students under age 21. o cover persons reports du
people missing as a result of disability. thebility might be one of reasons of the cause if a person's safety. the reporting requirement would apply if a person is disabled and those missing. -- and goes missing. the foster care system is important for them to play a role because there are many children who run away from foster care. they are particularly vulnerable to the sex trafficking industry because they do not have a permanent stable home that might be looking for them. so the child welfare agencies play a huge part in this. you might remember the case in florida. that case has never been solved. her case worker had not even
seen her for quite a long time. there needs to be reform in the child welfare system. report to law- enforcement, even if it is a key day year. -- a teenager. they are children. even though they are teenagers they are a vulnerable population. >> a general theme we are getting on our twitter page dealing with the catholic church. the catholic church protecting pedophiles from further damaging victims. that is part of the equation as well. it is one of the church did try to cover up many of these cases. guest: that's right. the national center worked with the catholic diocese on this
issue. i think there is real progress in the catholic church. i think they are learning. not hear any more cases of children being abused in the catholic church. it is one more area where there is an example of children in the control of a trusted adult who has been abused. the catholic church has had many adults who children are told to trust. the problem is children are afraid to say no and tell soembody if someone in a position of trust did someone to them. is a question of parents and children. it is important for children to know that they should report any uncomfortable situation,
whether it is by a priest or somebody else. they should be able to disclose that without any kind of fear. is next from massachusetts. guest: this is -- caller: this is a fantastic guest. suggest a program aneighbor-plus-neighbor. i am a widow and if i heard something that made me suspicious and i called the police and then it did not pan out to be anything it would come for the rest of my life, -- it would, for the rest of my likfe,
be on my shoulders. i have two or three other neighbors with me and it turned out to be something, that would be a different dynamic. thetimes you have defused responsibility for the calling. theou have to fuse responsibility and the calling. people call in number and say"this has got me worried, what do you think?" clearly the people on the ground who ever has the suspicions have to overcome their fear and their considerations and their worries about being the ones that:. we all know it is real and let us take on. c-hink you need to create span all stars and this woman
should be added to it. importantt is an point about neighbors reaching out to one another. it leads to more credibility to law-enforcement. i do not know what kind of leads the police department received. they received a lot of leads from the national center. the caller makes an excellent idea. ors workign together about everything that is going on -- there is a sense of community, of banding together adn sharing information that could prevent a child from being victimized. host: how else can people reach you? guest: they can make reports
online. sexake reports of child tourism, child pornography, child molestation. 800-the-lost. 1- we take calls from all over the world. 843-5678t is being with us. ] we are clinton continue our conversation at the top of the hour -- we are going to continue our conversation at the top of the hour. among the topics we discussed, the issue of sexual abuse in the
military and the response by the defense department. here's a portion of today's program. >> on the issue of military sexual assault president spoke out after there was a report estimating 26,000 assaults in the military last year. what you think about the changes being proposed such as stripping the commander's ability to overturn a guilty verdict after a jury has reached a verdict? sure wenk we need to be understand the ramifications of all of these different proposals. it is indefensible that there would be sexual assault -- especially sexual assault of this scale -- in the military. congress says we need to pass this or that to stop it. i completely agree we must stop it. we also need to make sure we understand consequences of any
particular action that is designed to reduce sexual assault but may have other consequences, too. we better understand what has happened and what is happening here and be sure that we understand consequences of these various proposals before we pass something just to respond in a knee-jerk sort of action. we need to make sure that it makes it difference when we respond, that it goes to the heart of the program at not just some sort of bend it that makes congress feel better. >> there is this issue of the convening authority being able to overturn the verdict. are you worried that might not -- that might have unintended consequences? >> and think we ought to examine it. i do not know for sure what the answer is. the military has a separate
system of justice from the civilian world. yet there can be no denying that something is terribly wrong here that we would have sexual assault on such a scale. make sure we are understanding what is down here and not justome cosmetic fix that is after the assault happened. blackthorn barry is our guest -- mac thornberry is our guest on "newsmakers." he is the author of a new book called "takedown." first we will take a look at the other programs that air on c- span radio, beginning with an dc's meet the press. a lot of questions about the irs and benghazi.
good morning, nancy. >> good morning. on to a's sunday talk shows topics will include the latest on benghazi and sexual harassment in the military. we re-air five programs. guests include the chairman of the government reform committee, intelligence committee chair senator dianne feinstein, and former investor and co-chairman of the state department accountability review board. democraticeek", senator jack reed and new york democratic senator kg. on the program, congressman adam smith, he is the ranking member on the house services committee.
and representatives elect, former governor of south carolina mark sanford. "stated the union closed " follows at 3:00 p.m.. guests include susan colorado and thomas pickering. also making an appearance democrat from illinois. balky for talks with former ambassador thomas pickering on benghazi. robert gates also on the program as well as senate majority leader dick durbin. the talk shows are brought to you as a public service by the network and c-span. 1:00, abc's "this week." finallythe union," and -- listen to all of them on c-span satxm nationwide
ellite radio 119, and c- span.org. afghanistantion in between 1978 and 1979 was so different than what we face today. so many things are radically different. there are no radical leftist parties in afghanistan today. that has been pretty much wiped out. we saw thewas when powerful forces in afghanistan. a sector lesswas modernizer. he was replaced in 1978 by the afghan communist to began -- who began to try to remodel society. the whole country rose up against him and that is what the soviets had to come in. what is amazing is that that
invasion and the almost and ending civil war that has has completely wiped out that old afghanistan we saw in the 50's and 70's. christianrelations, 1979 "book9, part tv" this weekend. >> "washington journal" continues. philipe want to welcome mudd. thank you for being with us. go right into the book. i want to share with you what you write about "what changed at
the fbi." can you explain? guest: when you are looking at the case one of the questions you have initially is who is the person who might be the suspect in the midst of conspiracy? you are getting paid on that individual -- date on that individual. after a 24 hour. you are quite have so much data that you are going to need a chart to map all out. the sec more interesting step is that individual -- the second more interesting step, is that individual part of a wider conspiracy? thethe sudden in the age of top, 2013 with facebook, twitter, cell phones and e-mail to have a mountain of data to sort through. host: if you look at what
happened with the stern eye of brothers in boston -- with the tsarnaev brothers in boston, what is your take away? guest: americans are looking for problems they can wrap up and put into boxes. what is the easy explanation that tells you how these guys get radicalized and where the government went wrong in missing out on the spot? in the past the government has made mistakes a few years ago. thatis case the problem is there are no easy solutions. these are two brothers in the midst of some conspiracy across the country. they are not communicating with a lot of people overseas. they are building a fairly basic device and putting it in an open space. americans are going to want to box this and say the experts chronotron and there is an easy
to fix it. it will happen again because this one is hard to stop. host: you were on the white house -- you were in the white house on the morning of september 11. wrote -- that is the good news in all of this. guest: that's right. in january ofcia 2002. briefingof the nightly to the cia director about what to coming over the transfer. we had an excel spreadsheet of threats coming in. those first years, a couple of things were happening.
penetrations of al qaeda was pretty high. , issense of unknown mediacy the big one going to happen tomorrow? 2006 mywent on into sense was not only that the tide has been turning but it has turned. i thought we were losing in 2003. clearly by 2007 and 2008 we were winning. what are the lessons from boston? what has to happen that did not happen? guest: the lessons a point to be difficult because i think they are quick to tell us that there is no easy way to stop this. there is no quick fix to this problem. i believe what should happen is you set up a time line, you take a look at where we have -- where we could have intervened in this plot.
the challenges i think there's not gonna be a quick fix. i am watching all the media coverage on this. i think the reactions, to be blunt, our nature. people are looking to say that once again the guys in government are bumbling idiots. in an open society you cannot stop those others who want to get a pressure cooker and by some fireworks. agencyny government you're going to get threats can you put that in terms of numbers? how many would the fbi be looking into on any given day or week? looking atare thousands per year. at any one time you have both people who would be the cream of the crop, that is people who
show both capability and attempt in conduct attacks. are they moving up in the scale? are you verifying the threats or are they going to move off the scale? the problem with cases like boston is people blow it out. they say what can you not find the next one or next five? they should reversed their thought process. how you go from 330 million people and protect their silver rights to boil the ocean down to one drop of water? do not take the case and blow out. to the universe of people in this country and society and tried boil it down to two guys, it is not easy. think they worked on their own or they had any help? guest: the first way is operational, they had people help them build the price? i do not think they did. despite the tragedy we saw in that city the sophistication of
this plot is at a lower end of the scale of what i saw people try to do in my 10 years after 9/11. it is not logical. for their people that pushed them along? i suspect so. were there people that know what was going on? my guess was yes. i invite a distinction between those that cut in their heads to persuade them that this was a good note the this is a good idea as opposed to someone to help them plan the attack. host: we welcome our visitors outside the united states. you can join us on twitter or facebook. you can also send us an e-mail. our guest is philip mudd.
he is a former fbi director of national security. 9/11 world did you and others in the intelligence community fathom what would happen on 911? -- on 9-eleven? guest: the people i worked with new that al qaeda was a threat. we have to reflect back with humility. you have to sit back and not defend yourself instead say how could i have done better? i think those of us who looked 11 -- s pre-9- i think we would have had a hard time fathoming that level of operation. eastattacked us in yemen, africa, and a stated publicly they are coming after a period
host: you touched on this point earlier, how do we deal with our own civil liberties, the freedom we inherently have in this country, while also protecting the homeland? guest: this was frustrating as a practitioner. you're being told two different things at a time. don'tton we were told why we stop every single 19 year-old knucklehead who wants to plant a bomb? my message as an american first and national security professionals second, the constitution says we live in the land of the free and the home of the break. in the land of the secure. protect civil liberties and as you protect them try your best to find ways to stop people like this. people like this are point to get through. --t: more from the book
guest: i think people worry too much about this threat. i am referring to the world i live in. terrorism seemed like such a strategic threat in september 12, 2001. incontrast to what we see gang warfare or trafficking in -- the balance has shifted. i convince me to confess i am a bit surprised -- in contrast to the threats we face and see in high-school and preschool, kids subjected to
selling of drugs and joining gangs, i think we are in a better place. host:. on the democrats won. on the benghazi situation, what is your take? guest: it is good to be outside of government. i used up a lot of congressional testimony, as well. i think people want to look at these situations in the midst of what we see every day. should have intervened with u.s. forces, we should have it ised the ambassador -- more complex than that. i'm sure there are civilians from around benghazi said that
this is cool, let me go steal an -- thisurn a building was a terrorist attack. the world i live in was not that simple. u.s. forces should have been there. boston was a mistake and let us move on to the next problem, it is not that easy. he served as both fbi and cia. we want to put off talks and the family'scluding yourse genealogy. dr. samuel mudd, of course infamous. guest: i did not realize how
much of a sense of your calligraphers have. i walked into the room and thought that i would work the public offer. my first comment was that this should be amusing because i come from a family of convicted felons. so he looked at me and said, "what do you mean i spent the next 10 minutes explaining how i was actually joking. this is going back to the civil war era. she did not find this particularly humorous. is joining us from alabama. good morning. he said that the ideology is difficult to control and the bureaucrats in the cia and military are doing
the best they can with all kinds of conflicting orders being given to them by different agencies and different political groups. i feel like the western units it is not taking this threat seriously because these two brothers had -- if they had a nuclear cost they would have exploded it. this is similar to communism. people simply are so politically correct that they just cannot see the threats and the ideology is the problem. host: thank you for the call. i know i am supposed to be the "terrorism guy," but i do not buy it.
and i deal int facts. fact 1, if you compare terrorism and violence in this country versus violence in high- school, i cannot carry out terrorism with my nieces and nephews. i carry about -- and not care about terrorism with my nieces and nephews. i care about gangs, guns, violence. fact number two, if you look at public opinion across the middle east and south asia in 2001 and 2002 there was a tremendous amount of anti-americanism and a tremendous amount of support for osama bin laden. he was viewed as the man who stood up to the head of the state. something has happened in the enter the inning years.
and places has said increasingly that they do not like the americans but these guys did not present a solution because they have killed to many muslims in places like baghdad. i think the spread of this ideology is slowly declining. it is just can take a long time for the ideology to sort itself out. it is some sort of ideological poison. that let me follow on point. joe lieberman testified before a house committee and said the vast majority of muslims in the u.s. and around the world are honest. thatso went on to say rightly or wrongly those that commit terrorism in this country tend to be of the muslim faith or use religion as a motivation. do you buy into that argument? guest: if you look at the people
i have focused on, islamic terrorism, of course. we have faced a significant amount of domestic terrorism in this country. we do not talk about that very much because it does not make the front page of the newspapers. white supremacists, sovereign citizen groups, we face a lot of domestic terrorism. domestic terrorism in the 1970's is far higher than it was today. people do not like to admit this in this country. before you call these guys " the inamic terrorists," this is contrast to the people we took down in 2001. we should not pretend that they really understand the ideology they purport to represent. he will never regret, he will never apologize, and he can sit there for days and explain to
you why he did what he did. this kid who is now in jail, he cannot explain it because it does not understand. a caller is joining us from pennsylvania. old.r: i am 72-years i am amazed at philip mudd because he has the most valid viewpoint. he says nothing i disagree with. if he was still in the government he could not speak as freely as he did. i would like to see his words on the new station day after day in the little small boxes. it is a drag to listen to most of this crap.
i want to commend him on his balance and viewpoints. thank you. guest: i hope my dad is watching. i will give you my address and you can send a six pack. a lot e- that i get mail's after events like this. you would be surprised at the amount of heat that goes on in this country. the problem i have with heat e- mail's this date are not based in fact. if you want to go toe to toe with me i expect some facts. host: our guest is with the new america foundation. the book is called a "takedown: inside the hunt for al qaeda."
how you answer those questions? guest: the first problem you have in a terrorist investigation is not only identifying the individual at the center of the web but what is the extent of the conspiracy? you do not want to read come down on the individual when the conspiracy will regenerate itself. this is a classic balance in a terrorist investigation. you are going to move some without looking for to the full experience -- to the full conspiracy. can we afford to keep going to intelligence investigations or do we have to come down on the guy? for those that criticize the government for not as many terrorism prosecutions as you would expect my answer is simple. terrorism investigations take a
long time, they cost a lot of taxpayer dollars. if we take somebody out for immigration violations or gun violations with a federal officer and do not spend millions or hundreds of thousands of dollars in a two year terrorist investigations so we can dick baker charges, you're telling me that as a failure? why do we have to prosecute terrorism -- terrorists for terrorism charges? one of the senate to the investigator -- said to the prosecution and go on to the next investigation? caller: i want to second-guess that last caller's sentiment. this is the dilemma of our day. as to what you would say about motivation -- i know it is not a black-and-white question and is very complicated. it seems to me there are extremists on both sides and the difficulty we have is that we
have a huge military industrial .omplex on our side our responsibility to be tempered in our rhetoric and politics. i think we have failed terribly. host: thank you for the call. guest: i will say the wrong thing, i cannot quite understand both the public and political reaction ic to events like this. -- i see too event like this. the american people suffered a tragedy in boston but it does not affect the fiber of american society. we should not give these punks and people who support them the pleasure of seeing just heard. we ought to mourn the dead in private, sweep of the glass, and move on. what they want is the coverage they got and i do not like to
give it to them. the second thing i would say, politically, sometimes you have to look into the camera and say "if you want perfect answers, ,"erica, look at those dummies sometimes you have to have the humility to say sometimes we cannot make this wperfecy. sometimes it will take three months. people do not like that, they want answers in 24 hours. i wish we had the humility to say "i am not sure what happened here, this does not look like a disaster, and i am not sure there is a fix." host: you write extensively about those early morning sessions with the fbi director. who is in the room? who gathers that information? what questions are asked? when you leave those sessions what you do with that information? host: the situations at the
bureau and agency are different. , 7:15 would be the first briefing of the day. you have 10 people in the room led by prefer -- and byay a briefer. most americans would be surprised. he sat around fairly casually and say "we have got this one, what is the risk and what we do next we occasionally sit back with our questions and ask where we can improve. lastly, but the volume of information. americans see the tip of the iceberg with boston.
of those a day. if you take one in you have to take one off the table. volume and banter back and forth say "what do we do with this one?" are we going to let the investigation go on for another month, prosecutors guy, and the want the next case? host: what gets to the president's desk? what is going to get there is the top of the crop. you're talking about the main case. it is a case that is going to be a broader conspiracy. it would be a case that would have tentacles, that europe or pakistan, a case that just the real conspiracy and threats to america. -- that shows a real conspiracy and threat to america. the other thing that will periodically get to the president is what is going on
with homegrown terrorists and, with white supremacist groups, with people. people who want to come after the president because he is a black american. the couple the tactical pieces with the stand back and see what the trends we are seeing. host: this question from twitter? thought it was the right thing to do. i believe in lanes in the red. as of america can i say let us take the other option. , onecides not to lockdown of those kids goes out, and he shoots three kids at a gas station. would people be comfortable with that? i think not. host: from new york city, good morning.
i wanted to find out if the attack in boston could have had kgb involvment to make americans stop supporting chechnya. guest: i do not think so. there was a question of who the brothers stepped up against. they were not there that long. they spent more time in the united states. i would wager that there was some ideological influence when they went home. it does not appear to me to be profound over the course of years. i think the russian inco is worth investigating. -- russian ankle is worth investigating. -- russian angle is worth investigating.
they're looking for the veneer of an ideology that allows the dissenting about the frustrations. it is not because they are frustrated, it is for a bigger cause. the national institute of standards and technology acknowledged that -- sparing the diatribe of conspiracy theories can you give me a straight answer of how that is scientifically possible without the use of explosives? guest: i think we should pass on this question. if you want to tell me that there's something going on probably thet was most investigated event in fbi history. i did not want to spend time on this question. i do not think it is valid. host: i agree. we had that question posed many times before.
guest: bring them on. hearing theve been conspiracy theories on this for many years. sometimes you have to scratch your head. guest: i will go down to the coffee shop in memphis and hopefully nobody will know i was on this show. i can have a cup of coffee and forget about terrorism. host: robert is joining us from ohio. p ishilip mudd -- our guests philip mudd. in 2006 and went to a seminar they held in virginia. . heard charles allen aboutned him in 2006 radicalized americans and radicalized islamists.
question has to do with the possibility of having a robust domestic surveillance inside of america. they called charlie in from the cold. he was nearly 80 years old. guest: he is still going. gosh.: oh my .e talked about fusions centers cia will communicate with state and local law enforcement. they all communicate with each other. that is counter intelligence blending with law-enforcement, those are two big different cultures. we, and i was.
understanding of what he had to say about our personal we havees -- in britain m have mi-5 and they have not given up their civil liberties and freedom. is it possible we could develop some type of fusion centers where we could have a robust domestic counterintelligence within the united states? host: we will get a response. guest: i have faced this question a lot. why don't we have a domestic intelligence service in the united states? i do not think it is a bad idea i just do not think it is necessary. please department in regions like california clark coming together and saying "what is our collective problem with gangs and drugs?"
you also have the joint terrorism task forces within the fbi offices that brings police forces with federal investigators to get it. that is sort of what the fbi does. think thisi do not is a good idea is not because i do not think it will work. the grass is greener on the other side. at the bureau you could investigate and act to get a pit what you have with mi-5 is you investigate with one chain of andmand for intelligence then you pass the lead over for prosecution. in some cases they are embedded. they are getting closer and closer to get it. somebody will tell you over a beard that they wish they could have some of our flexibility to move directly from the intelligence to prosecution. they have the luxury to build
intelligence professionals who do not have to worry about building a legal case. i look at both and say both have strengths and weaknesses. i am not sure the grass is greener. if we move to that side and we are going to have to create a bridge between domestic security services possibly leading to the fbi. are you surprised the attackers saw in boston did not happen sooner? guest: i am somewhere between surprised and shocked. with the ease of which you can --ld that kind of conspiracy tell me what part of that plot with sophisticated. not piece of that was. a hearty and baseball cap. turn the cap forward and hoodie up so the cameras cannot see you.
the level of sophistication was pretty limited. with the volume of stuff we had going on in this country, the fact this has not happened earlier is a little bit short of astonishing. host: a call from chicago. good morning. such a this is complicated colorado. column.icated what would you suggest that we can do to try it controls some of this? moore research's plan to be necessary. -- more research is probably necessary. guest: i think we have done pretty well. if your margin of success this zero then why is that not our margin of gang warfare? that cannot be your margin. we're taking one event and saying because that event
happened over 12 years of counter-terrorism operations we ought to change the way we do business. i would say quite the opposite. there's a difference between grieving and mourning for people who lost children and people who have injured relatives and saying "this attack represents foundational threats to the united states," it doesn't. we need to talk to communities so they see law-enforcement as a friend. we are not the security service from your home country, we are actually from the guys. we ought not to talk about terrorism. we ought to talk about what terrorism defense, murderess. murderers.defends, we had the challenge of time and
bretadth. if you go home word as you were in 2002 ps sorry about something else. -- please worry about something else. if you put terrorism in the top- 10, i may counter-terrorism that. we will let you enjoy that coffee down the street. thank you for being with us. on the smothers they wanted to share with you a conversation that president clinton johnson had with a washington star reporter in 1964. -- president lyndon johnson had with a washington star reported in 1964. >> she pushed me into high school, made me take the college entrance exams when i did not
want to do it. add just -- i just did not make it. she sat up all night long. >> what was she saying to you then? >> she was reviewing my speech, saying, "please emphasize this --d be " talking to me about i wish i had her now so she could go over the questions before i have a press conference. host:
in a telephone conversation on his own mother. that conversation took place in 1964. many of those recordings are available on our website. we have been sharing with you .any of the conversations our guests tomorrow include jay solomon to discuss the latest operations in syria and the middle east. the former u.s. ambassador to syria will be joining us, now a professor at rice university. aram neguizian to talk about the assad regime. here tomorrow at 7:00
a.m.. have a happy mother's day. thank you for being with us. have a great week ahead. >> today, "newsmakers" mac thornberry followed by the house oversight a commanding on the benghazi. than a confirmation hearing from u.s. ambassadors to libya and chad. >> this week, mac thornberry, chairman of the intelligence arm services committee.